Re: Oldest RC bugs affecting etch

Hi! Steve Langasek [2006-01-05 12:06 -0800]: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:08:35AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > > Nathanael Nerode [2006-01-05 3:29 -0500]: > > > 281893 -- patched uninstallable bug in libroken16-kerberos4kth > > > Orphan package and make QA upload? > > > Just my 2 cents: Is t

Re: Oldest RC bugs affecting etch

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:08:35AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > Nathanael Nerode [2006-01-05 3:29 -0500]: > > 281893 -- patched uninstallable bug in libroken16-kerberos4kth > > Orphan package and make QA upload? > Just my 2 cents: Is there any reason why we should keep krb4 in the > first place

Re: replacing sysklogd (was: Oldest RC bugs affecting etch)

Hi Nathanael! You wrote: > 284914 -- trivial bug in klogd. > I still say we switch to another syslogd implementation and remove > sysklogd entirely. It's got 4 RC bugs and 99 bugs total, including 34 > patches. Effectively, it's unmaintained, but Joey hasn't orphaned it. > It's a sloppy

Re: Oldest RC bugs affecting etch

* Martin Pitt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060105 10:08]: > Nathanael Nerode [2006-01-05 3:29 -0500]: > > 281893 -- patched uninstallable bug in libroken16-kerberos4kth > > Orphan package and make QA upload? > > Just my 2 cents: Is there any reason why we should keep krb4 in the > first place? It's hor

Re: Oldest RC bugs affecting etch

Hi! Nathanael Nerode [2006-01-05 3:29 -0500]: > 281893 -- patched uninstallable bug in libroken16-kerberos4kth > Orphan package and make QA upload? Just my 2 cents: Is there any reason why we should keep krb4 in the first place? It's horribly old, out of date, and broken security-wise years ag

Oldest RC bugs affecting etch

I looked at bts.turmzimmer.net and defined 'old' to be older than 365 days. Most of the bugs are non-free documentation bugs (which irritates me; I wish the maintainers would do their duty). Several of the others are woody-only, so I version-marked them (though I might have screwed that up). Perh